The big difference between the two sides is that the tourism board is looking at the big picture when it comes to the World Cup -- the type of experience fans have while in Brazil -- as opposed to the bottom line. It is interested in how the country is perceived by visitors, and it fears that overly high prices will make tourists leave with a false impression/bad taste in their mouths, not necessarily wanting to return or highly recommend it to friends. FIFA and Match, however, aren't operating with Brazil's reputation in mind -- they want to make money.
Match has since denied the claims that they are marking up rates, insisting that they follow "charges set by the hotel owners and other tourism stakeholders."
Obviously, someone here is being less than truthful. If FIFA is indeed further increasing prices for their own profits, we do believe that to be a really low blow considering that this is not the first time the economics of the World Cup have been an issue. Last June, locals protested poor public services despite large government spending to host the tournament.
If some of the tourism dollars aren't staying in the country (aka going to FIFA) and the ones that are aren't helping the local cities and communities, then tourism is officially doing more harm than good, no?